Being Eco-friendly is more than just a gimmick.
It seems everywhere you look today someone is marketing their company or product as being Green, that is, ‘environmentally friendly,’ ‘carbon neutral,’ or any of the many other names embedded in commercials to help sell more widgets, regardless whether they’re actually any better for the environment or not. In fact, so prevalent has this advertising become it won’t be long before the word ‘Green’ will have about as much meaning as ‘New and Improved’ or ‘State of the Art’ both at one time meaningful when attached to a product and now completely irrelevant and ignored. But even more worrying is the fact that the ‘Green’ moniker can give companies the cover of being eco-friendly when in fact their business practices are anything but. In other words, it’s not enough to consider the one specific product or ingredient in a particular product a company is offering, as this may have little or no impact on the environment in general, but rather to find out what kind of company you’re actually dealing with. Most people are smart enough to know who the worst offenders are—known polluters, companies that fight tooth and nail to defeat environmental protection laws—and know how to avoid them (or at least ignore their false claims regarding their environmental awareness), but when it comes to the average company how can you be sure they are who they say they are, that is, genuinely concerned about the environment, worker safety, reducing one’s carbon footprint, finding and developing materials that are truly safer and more friendly to customers as well as the earth?
As with most things, the best way to tell is by looking at the company’s track record. How have they treated their workers in the past; are they genuinely concerned with the safety of each person who works for them, and how can a consumer verify this?
When it comes to products, have they proactively looked for materials that are safer for homeowners as well as the environment, or have they only complied once the law mandated specific changes or banned certain products, causing them to scramble trying to make up for lost time, working with materials they aren’t familiar with and which they may or may not know how to apply properly?
Most importantly, what do potential customers know about these companies: are they civic minded; are they good neighbors to the other businesses, residents, schools and public institutions in their area?
Without verifiable data on these fronts, it may be impossible to tell the difference between who’s genuinely concerned with creating a better world, and whose passing themselves off as environmentally conscious just to make more money.
The Armstrong ethos has always been to view our company and how we interact with the public as a microcosm for the greater world around us. From the way we treat our employees, to the care and concern we take in the products we develop and select, we feel that if we can make it work internally there’s every reason to hope it will have an impact on a larger scale.
When it comes to our workforce, we have always gone to the greatest lengths to ensure worker safety, either when at the warehouse or on the job, in both their practices and with the materials and equipment provided for them. As a painting contractor this involves making sure we test every building built prior to 1978 for lead, as well as making sure all of our painters and foremen are lead certified. And though this is the law, in fact an OSHA regulation, the percentage of painters who comply with this is shamefully low, too low to even consider seriously. And unlike most companies, who are obviously trying to avoid the issue, our General Manager (and son of founder Howard Fine) Mitch Fine, has actively worked to strengthen these laws and to see that they are not blatantly ignored, by both the contractors and those responsible for enforcing them.
As for proof that a contractor is protecting his workers, contractors who actually carry Worker’s Compensation insurance for each one of their employees pay a higher or lower overall percentage based on their safety record. This varies depending on the nature of the installation, but whether for window installers, painters or roofers there is an identifiable rate scale and corresponding discount for those companies with a proven track record for protecting their workers. Any company can provide this information, assuming of course they’re operating legitimately (an assumption no home or business owner should ever make), and will be happy to if they’re honest and proud of how they treat their employees.
It was also Mitch Fine who, all the way back in 1991, long before the word Green or the concept of eco-friendly business practices were on anyone’s radar, was one of the first to introduce and actively promote low- and non-toxic paints for use on interiors in the Bay Area. Read the San Francisco Bay Guardian Article here. Concerned about the toxic chemicals found in most interior paint products, and the potential health hazards associated with these products, especially to children, Mitch researched and procured materials for Armstrong to apply in the home to ensure the safety of homeowners and their families.
More recently, Armstrong has been involved with the implementation of a safer generation of blowing agents for our Foam Roofing applications. Well ahead of the required dates for compliance, Armstrong started to use a blowing agent, HFC-245fa, to replace the more commonly used HCFC-141b, to aid in the conversion to zero ozone depleting potential (ODP) materials. This proactive move was initiated because of our long term commitment to environmental issues but has also had an interesting side benefit, for us and our customers. As is often the case when formulas change, whether in paint, coatings, extruded vinyl, and certainly with foam blowing agents (the key element to properly applied foam materials), there is a learning curve involved, as the applicators have to experience how these changes have affected the material application, and the newer components have to be refined by the manufacturer as they hear back from contractors regarding issues arising out in the field. Fortunately for our customers, we tested out these new materials prior to applying them and have now been using them long enough to have worked out all the bugs. Not so fortunate are all those companies and their suppliers (not to mention their potential customers) who procrastinated, and who are now faced with the same learning curve we mastered some time ago. For many of them this could take years and in the mean time will mean improperly applied roofs for their clients. The primary issue involved is the difficulty some of these blowing agents have in parts of the country with a high concentration of moisture in the air, such as the Bay Area, affecting the proper rise of the foam, leaving it soft and the interior cell structure not fully formed. Unfortunately for most homeowners there will be no way for them to tell whether they’ve had a proper installation until the roof fails, leaving them in the unenviable position of having to the address the issue after the fact.
If these companies had really been concerned with environmental issues, they would have put the money and the time into researching and working with these products long before bringing them to market. Instead of worrying about short-term profits (clearly a nationwide problem), they wouldn’t have waited to experiment on their customer’s homes and businesses with the application of materials they haven’t been using long enough to install properly.
And that’s the main issue, namely, whether companies take the initiative out of a deeper sense of commitment to their customers and the environment, or whether they wait until forced to do so by changes in the law, leaving them scrambling to make up for lost time and their customers with a questionable application of materials on their homes.
When it comes to being a responsible business, there’s more to it than just making claims about what products are being used, or whether you’ve joined some organization that allows you to use their Green friendly logo to give the appearance of genuine concern. The plain fact is, either a company has the intention of acting in an ethical manner, towards its employees as well as the environment, because the people who own and operate it incorporate this ethic into their personal lives, or more than likely the idea of being eco-friendly is an after-thought, or worse a cynical ploy to make more money and appear environmentally conscious.
At Armstrong we’ve been involved with these issues for years, and simply because it’s the right thing to do—right for our employees, right for our customers, and right for the Bay Area. We will continue to work and learn as we move forward, striving to do our best for the community in which we live and the people who we serve.
If you get a chance, drop by our office/showroom, where you can see how serious we are about the environment. Read the Oakland Tribune article here. Outside we transformed a parking lot into a native garden and bioswale by planting up to 40 native species all indigenous to the Temescal Creek Basin. By choosing plants and trees in harmony with nature’s cycle such as redwood, manzanita, oak, grape and sage, we not only reduce irrigation requirements but help bring ourselves back into accord with our natural environment. Inside, we chose low VOC paints, recycled carpets, energy efficient lighting and u. v. reducing windows. On top of it all are solar panels and an Armstrong solid core “sustainable” foam roof. If you do decide to come by, hopefully there won’t be too much green fog by then to prevent you from finding us, but the way things are going in the world of eco advertising you never know.
Learn more about our environmental impact here: http://www.armstrong1234.com/articles.html
Posted by foamroofing 
